Order-in-Original Quashed and Matter Remanded for Failure to Consider Timely Filed Manual Reply

By | August 5, 2026
0 Comment

Order-in-Original Quashed and Matter Remanded for Failure to Consider Timely Filed Manual Reply

Issue

Whether an adjudication order passed under Section 73 without considering a timely filed manual reply violates principles of natural justice and warrants writ interference despite the statutory appeal being time-barred.

Facts

  • The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 to the petitioner under Section 73, fixing October 23, 2023, as the due date for filing a response.

  • The petitioner filed its response manually on October 22, 2023, well within the prescribed time limit.

  • The adjudicating authority passed an Order-in-Original without taking into consideration the manual reply submitted by the petitioner.

  • The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the adjudication order, which was subsequently dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

  • The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, assailing the adjudication order for gross violation of natural justice.

  • The Revenue argued that the reply was required to be submitted electronically and that the petitioner failed to appear on the personal hearing date.

Decision

  • The High Court held that it was undisputed that the petitioner had submitted its reply within the time prescribed in the SCN.

  • The High Court rejected the Revenue’s technical objection that the reply was invalid merely because it was submitted manually rather than electronically.

  • The High Court held that the non-appearance of the petitioner on the personal hearing date did not relieve the adjudicating authority of its legal duty to consider the written reply on record.

  • The High Court held that passing an order without considering a timely reply amounts to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, which vitiates the entire adjudication process.

  • The High Court held that writ interference under Article 226 is fully justified when natural justice is violated, even if the statutory appeal was dismissed on limitation.

  • Consequently, the High Court quashed the Order-in-Original and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh decision after duly considering the petitioner’s reply.

Key Takeaways

  • Duty to Consider Written Submissions: Non-appearance during a personal hearing does not grant license to the adjudicating authority to ignore a written reply already on record; the officer remains bound to consider all material submissions before passing an order under Section 75(4).

  • Manual vs. Electronic Submissions: Technical procedural objections, such as filing a reply physically/manually instead of via the portal, cannot override substantive compliance or be used as a ground to treat a timely reply as non-existent.

  • Writ Jurisdiction for Breach of Natural Justice: Exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies or dismissal of an appeal on grounds of limitation does not bar High Courts from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an order suffers from a fundamental breach of natural justice.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
J M D News & Advertisers
v.
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ.
and Subhash Upadhyay, J.
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 54 OF 2025
JULY  23, 2026
Rohit Arora, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.- The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the recovery citation dated 22.02.2025 and, also for a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. It appears that the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023 was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in appeal filed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act, but it has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 28.02.2025, on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023 is wholly illegal inasmuch as, the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to show-cause notice issued in GSTDRC01 on 22.10.2023 has not at all been taken into consideration. He submits that the non-consideration of the reply of the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority deserves to be quashed.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department and in which it has not been disputed that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner the last date fixed for submission of the reply was 23.10.2023. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had submitted his reply manually on 22.10.2023 i.e. well before the last date fixed for submitting reply. However, the only stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that since the reply was not submitted electronically, therefore, it has not been considered. It is further stated that the petitioner also did not present himself on the date fixed for hearing and, therefore, also he cannot contend that his reply has not been considered.
5. As it is not disputed before us that the reply was submitted by the petitioner well within time and, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the technical objection that the reply should have been submitted electronically only and then only it was liable to be considered.
6. The other contention that since the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed therefore reply was not considered is also not sustainable in law. In case the reply was submitted by the petitioner it becomes the duty of the adjudicating authority to consider the same while passing the adjudication order even though if the petitioner was not present at the time of hearing. Thus, we find gross violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
7. As the non-consideration of reply goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we feel inclined to interfere in the present matter even though the appeal was filed beyond the limitation prescribed.
8. The order in original passed by the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023 is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 22.10.2023. In case the petitioner requests for personal hearing, the same shall also be provided to the petitioner before any decision is taken.
9. The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.